Evidence of meeting #52 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was artists.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael Atkinson  President, Canadian Construction Association
Albert Chambers  Executive Director, Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition
Theresie Tungilik  As an Individual
Darrah Teitel  Director of Advocacy, National, Canadian Artists Representation
Alex Ferguson  Vice President, Policy and Performance, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Martha Durdin  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Credit Union Association
Joseph Galimberti  President, Canadian Steel Producers Association
Jordan Brennan  Economist, Research Department, Unifor
Robert Martin  Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Credit Union Association
Kurt Eby  Director, Regulatory Affairs and Government Relations, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
Gerry Harrington  Vice President, Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Health Products Canada
Denise Amyot  President and Chief Executive Officer, Colleges and Institutes Canada
Clare Demerse  Federal Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada
Allison Ferris  Vice-President, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada
Timothy Ross  Program Manager, Policy and Government Relations, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada
Fraser Reilly-King  Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Bryan Keshen  President and Chief Executive Officer, Reena
Yuri Navarro  Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, National Angel Capital Organization

5:05 p.m.

President, Canadian Steel Producers Association

Joseph Galimberti

I can tell you that there is certainly interest, and we've had briefings with Public Works and with the shipbuilders responsible for those projects, and with DND about the specifications. If there is an opportunity even to make an investment in facilities, our producers have demonstrated that they're willing to move to make that investment so long as it makes economic sense.

The reality of steel is that if you have a plant that's already making a very specialized product in the environment that exists today with transportation costs being as low as they are, perhaps it doesn't make sense from an economic perspective to make a significant capital investment.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

We were talking about the issue of a drywall tariff, similar to what happened a few years ago with rebar. Right now residents of Fort McMurray who are trying to rebuild their homes are facing higher costs because of the system, which you're suggesting needs to be changed even further, which I would say is going to end up with consumers paying more and not necessarily seeing Canadian companies picking up that slack.

It's an area that I am a little concerned about.

5:05 p.m.

President, Canadian Steel Producers Association

Joseph Galimberti

That's fair, and I certainly wouldn't presume to comment on the drywall—the gypsumboard issue—because it has nothing to do with steel.

From a steel perspective, and this goes to rebar, our concern is not with fair trade. Our concern is with product that is dumped and subsidized by foreign governments; that puts Canadians out of work. Inasmuch as no shortage of supply is demonstrable on the west coast, there are ample opportunities to purchase products, not from Canadian producers exclusively, but globally from producers who are selling at a fair price, and we think that is fine. Our only concern is where the CBSA and the CITT demonstrate through rigorous investigation that people are cheating the system to get access to product that is putting Canadians out of business.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Thank you.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We will have to cut it there.

I know people in the room are waiting for the second panel; we had a shutdown of some equipment so we're a little over time.

I do have one question. We like to ensure that all the witnesses have a question. Mr. Chambers, you haven't been asked one.

We've heard from a lot of witnesses that agriculture is one of the growth industries of the future, and you were talking about food safety. You talk about increasing funding to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I wonder about efficiencies in that system. I'll just give you an example.

From your proposal how can we get to economic growth within the whole food chain?

The point I want to make on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency—I'm not quite happy with them at the moment, I will admit—is they moved an operation from a location where they had an agreement with a marketing agency for housing the inspectors. They moved into a city where they won't tell me what they're paying for rent, but I'm told it's probably five times higher than it was at the previous location. When I asked why would they move to a new location that was going to cost more with longer distances to go to the farming community, the response they gave me was they don't pay the rent. It's Public Works. I'm not happy with that answer because when you talk about efficiencies across government—I hope CFIA is listening.

It's not just a question of more funding for CFIA, it's a matter of creating some efficiencies within their system as well. How do we achieve greater economic growth with what you're proposing here, either in the Canadian or in the North American context?

5:10 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition

Albert Chambers

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regrettably, the Prime Minister didn't appoint me as president of the CFIA last week, so I really can't provide you with a good answer on your initial question about the relocation of a CFIA office.

To get to the broader question, Canada has a really good reputation for producing safe food. Over the past two decades, the world has changed. The expectations as to what governments should be doing and what industry—from the farm all the way to the processing sector and beyond—should be doing to assure consumers of food safety have changed significantly. We are trying to catch up now with where the Europeans, the Americans, the Australians, and the New Zealanders have gone, where our major competitors in the export market already are. We are now trying to catch up in both regulation and industry activity.

We have an industry that has been strong. There are just under 7,000 food companies registered with FDA as exporters of food. That's more than we have in Stats Canada's last survey of where the food processors really are in Canada, but when you look at it from another perspective, fewer than 50 of those firms have 500 or more employees, and only 450 or so have between 100 and 500 employees. All the rest are medium, small, or micro-sized firms, and they are going to be playing catch-up in order to preserve their access to the retail markets, to the food service markets, and to the global or continental market.

There is going to be significant change, which industry supports. It goes right down to your potato growers in P.E.I. and all the way up through the chain. We are looking for some investment by the government to ensure that we are going to have an inspectorate that is competent and in sufficient numbers to handle these significantly larger numbers of companies that are going to be involved. We are looking at some opportunities, especially for small enterprises, the ones with 1 to 50 employees, to be able to upgrade their systems, put in the new regulatory requirements, and make the changes they need. We are looking for some incentives there.

If we don't do those things, we'll have trouble demonstrating comparability with the Americans or others in the global marketplace in terms of our regulatory system and inspection system, and we'll have trouble meeting the requirements from an industry perspective to meet those markets as well.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much.

Mr. Brennan, I know you never got asked a question either, but I do remember vividly Jerry Dias when he was here at the last pre-budget hearing we had. You represent a lot of workers across this country. The debate then was on Bombardier, and he had a very clear answer on why they should be funded in order to maintain our aerospace industry. Do you have anything to add?

5:10 p.m.

Economist, Research Department, Unifor

Jordan Brennan

There has been some chatter in the media about Bombardier being bailed out, but strictly speaking, it would be an investment. It would be shuffling assets on the left side of the government's balance sheet away from cash towards shares. That would be the only thing I would like to have on record there. There is no request for a bailout; it is an investment—and, if you look at Bombardier's stock price, chances are it would be a very wise one.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay.

With that, we will call it a day with this panel. I thank all of you for your presentations. We also have the original ones on our mobile units.

We'll suspend for five minutes for the next panel to get situated.

The meeting is suspended.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I hate to rush people, but we will run out of time. Could we reconvene and come to order, please?

I thank all the witnesses for coming.

This is the last panel on the pre-budget consultations for the next budget. We've heard from a lot of witnesses across the country and in Ottawa. As you know, we're trying to emphasize what needs to be done to achieve better economic growth in Canada, so if you can tie that into your remarks it would be great. We do have all the presentations that have been made, they are in mobile units, and so members will be looking at them from time to time.

We'd appreciate it if you could hold your remarks as close to five minutes as possible to give time for questions.

We will start then with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association.

Mr. Eby, the floor is yours. Welcome.

5:20 p.m.

Kurt Eby Director, Regulatory Affairs and Government Relations, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm very pleased to be here.

Canada's wireless industry is comprised of a diverse range of competitors that all share a common goal: empowering more Canadians to use wireless to do more. Canadian consumer preferences have created our mobile-first world, where smartphones and tablets are the preferred choice to communicate, navigate, inform, shop, bank, work, collaborate, entertain and be entertained. Businesses rely on wireless to stay connected to their customers, employees, and partners, as well as to increase productivity. Both consumers and enterprises depend on the wireless industry to continue investing and innovating so they can maximize the value of their wireless experience.

Investing to deliver and enhance expansive mobile broadband service will inherently contribute to Canada’s economy and Canadian prosperity. It will also support many of the objectives identified by the committee as a focus for this consultation, including helping all Canadians, in all regions, maximize their contributions to the economy and assisting businesses in meeting their expansion, innovation, and prosperity goals. Indeed, few measures could better contribute to all the goals identified in the budget consultation than facilitating wireless network infrastructure investment.

Canadians are the fourth-highest consumers of wireless data in the world, and Canadian mobile data traffic is projected to increase by 600% over the next four years. Meeting this demand presents an opportunity to directly benefit all Canadians; however, the non-stop infrastructure investment required to do so also presents a significant challenge.

Total Canadian investment in wireless infrastructure in 2015 was $2.9 billion. The results of this investment are significant. Canada's wireless network infrastructure covers an area bigger than the land masses of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain combined. Throughout this massive service area, Canadians have access to average smartphone connection speeds that are more than 50% faster, on average, than in those five European countries—

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Eby, could you just slow down a touch. They're having a little difficulty.

5:25 p.m.

Director, Regulatory Affairs and Government Relations, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

Kurt Eby

Certainly.

We take advantage of this service. Canadians use about 90% more data on average than users in these countries, and 83% of all mobile traffic in Canada travels over the latest generation 4G networks, compared to an average of only 51% of mobile traffic in these major European economies.

Wireless infrastructure also requires significant spectrum investment. More than $12 billion has been invested in spectrum auctions since 2008, and the government currently benefits from more than $1 billion per year in direct revenue from payments for the right to use spectrum.

All of these investments create jobs directly related to network expansion and enhancement and the ongoing delivery of advanced wireless services from Canada's service providers. In 2015, Canada's wireless industry supported 139,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.

Infrastructure investments will continue to be necessary to meet the demand of exploding data use and ensure a consistent level of service for all Canadians. Strategic government policies can facilitate additional investment in wireless network infrastructure to help ensure this demand is met and support innovation and economic development across Canada.

To further enable investment in wireless network infrastructure, CWTA submits that budget 2017 include an accelerated capital cost allowance from current rates to 50%, for classes of depreciable assets that are linked to telecom network equipment, including broadband networks. The direct impact of this increased telecommunications network infrastructure investment, enabled by these proposed changes, would be a $163-million increase in GDP and an additional 1,600 jobs.

Beyond the direct impacts, additional investment in telecommunications infrastructure would help more Canadians maximize their contributions to economic growth, particularly by enabling businesses across the country to expand, prosper, and service customers in Canada and internationally. Businesses will also be better served if the government can help to ensure they compete on a level playing field rather than facing a disadvantage due to existing regulation.

Mobile video is expected to account for 77% of mobile traffic in Canada by 2020, up from around 60% today, as Canadians continually turn to mobile devices to be entertained and access news media. However, if the current GST/HST legislative framework is not amended, Canadian providers of digital products and services will continue to be burdened by an up to 15% price disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors.

Currently, foreign suppliers of digital products and services, such as online news and entertainment services, music, movies, and software, are not required to collect or remit HST, while similar Canadian firms are. The competitive advantage given to foreign suppliers by this policy undermines Canadian investment and innovation by encouraging Canadians to spend money outside of Canada, to the detriment of all who benefit from a strong digital economy.

Canadians growing preference for digital-based products and services makes closing this loophole more important than ever. Indeed, as consumer preferences increasingly shift from physical goods to digital options, Canadian firms will be further disadvantaged, and the revenue loss suffered by federal and provincial governments will continue to grow.

We strongly believe that the government should ensure taxation parity among all suppliers of digital goods in Canada, removing the competitive advantage currently enjoyed by foreign firms. This would bring Canada's regime in line with the EU, Norway, Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.

Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harrington, from Consumer Health Products Canada, the floor is yours. Welcome.

5:25 p.m.

Gerry Harrington Vice President, Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Health Products Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for this opportunity to take part in the pre-budget consultations.

My organization, Consumer Health Products Canada, represents the manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and natural health products. We are a $5.6-billion industry, we account for about $1.5 billion in exports, and we provide jobs to 56,000 Canadians.

Canadians use over-the-counter medicines and natural health products to manage their coughs and colds, their allergies, headaches, and upset stomachs, and also to manage the symptoms of chronic ailments, such as the pain of arthritis. That's self-care, and it matters to Canadians and contributes to a sustainable health care system by helping them avoid unnecessary doctor visits.

For example, while the vast majority of Canadians with minor ailments practise self-care, Canadian surveys have established that about one in seven Canadians will visit a doctor to have those ailments treated. Doctor visits for colds, headaches, and upset stomachs alone cost the health care system about $1 billion annually.

CHP Canada has calculated that if only 16% of those people who go to the doctor for one of these minor ailments—and I'm speaking now of people who have self-assessed their symptoms as being relatively minor—were to practise self-care instead, then you would free up about three million doctor visits a year, and that would be enough to provide family physicians to 500,000 Canadians who currently don't have a family doctor.

I'd like to speak for a moment about growth, as you referred to earlier, Mr. Chairman. Many of the over-the-counter medicines Canadians use in self-care were once prescription drugs. When you think of pain relievers like Aleve, or Advil, or if you think of allergy medicines like Reactin or Aerius, or even nicotine patches, these products became available over the counter by going through a regulatory process called the “Rx-to-OTC switch”. The Rx-to-OTC switch process is the main way that our industry grows, and it's also the main way that we increase our contribution to an efficient health care system.

When it comes to budget measures, we've already submitted a detailed proposal to the committee for an end to tax policies that undermine that contribution to self-care. In short, it makes no sense that when a medicine moves from prescription status to being used in self-care, it loses its exemption under the goods and services tax and its eligibility under the medical expense tax credit. Tax policy and health policy really need to come back into alignment on this issue.

It's also a tax fairness issue, because 24% of those Canadians who go to the doctor for their minor ailments told us that they did so in order to get a prescription medicine that would be covered by their drug plan. The millions of largely lower-income working Canadians who don't have access to a good quality drug plan can't avoid those taxes that way. In your questions for the consultation, you asked about broader federal actions that could contribute to economic growth, and I'd like to underline one particular initiative that's under way right now.

Health Canada has just launched the first in a series of consultations on a whole new regulatory framework for these self-care products, and we applaud the department for having framed this as an attempt to help better inform self-care. I'd like to underline a particular opportunity that really shouldn't be missed in that context.

I referred earlier to the Rx-to-OTC switch process, and unfortunately, that process in Canada lags badly by comparison to most of our major trading partners. Canadians gain access to these switch products on average seven to nine years after their counterparts in the United States or in the European Union. For example, I made reference earlier to Aleve. That product became available in Canada almost nine years after it was available in the U.S.

There's a need to address the overlapping, inefficient, and sometimes conflicting mishmash of federal and provincial regulations governing this switch process. The way it works currently, Health Canada reviews all of the evidence submitted by a manufacturer, and it makes a determination to approve the switch. This is a process that takes about a year. After that, the manufacturer has to negotiate a variety of different provincial approval processes that reaffirm the switch, and then Health Canada decides additional conditions of sale. This is called drug scheduling, and it's how basically it's determined whether your product is going to be purchased from behind the counter through a pharmacist, or perhaps in the front shop of a pharmacy, or even if it can be sold through any outlet like a 7-Eleven.

This federal-provincial interplay can delay product launches for up to two years in some provinces. It leads to different outcomes in different provinces, and overall it basically creates a lot of disincentives to innovative manufacturers. We believe that under the auspices of this self-care framework there's a tremendous opportunity for Health Canada to take a leadership role and integrate the drug scheduling process with the product approval process. To do so, you would not only make the framework much more effective, but you would also be doing something that is entirely consistent with current federal and provincial initiatives, such as the negotiations on the new health accord, discussions on affordable access to medicines, and reductions of barriers to internal trade.

With that, I'll stop. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much.

Ms. Amyot, from Colleges and Institutes Canada.

5:35 p.m.

Denise Amyot President and Chief Executive Officer, Colleges and Institutes Canada

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of Canada's extensive network of colleges, CEGEPs, polytechnics, and institutes that serve over 3,000 urban, rural, northern, and remote communities from coast to coast to coast, with an impact of $191 billion in 2014-15.

Our students, faculty, administrators, and immediate families represent one Canadian in eight.

In its written presentation, Colleges and Institutes Canada has submitted eight recommendations to support the government plan to achieve inclusive growth that will benefit the entire Canadian population and reduce social and economic disparities.

Related recommendations have also been presented during other consultations, including those on innovation, the fundamental science review, international development aid, and, soon, official languages.

Today I will touch only on three key areas that our members see as opportunities to contribute to the government's agenda.

First, to stimulate economic growth, Canada must unleash the innovation potential of small and medium-sized enterprises by supporting applied research that can strengthen local economies and communities across the country.

How? Colleges and institutes occupy a distinct niche in Canada's innovation ecosystem that is complementary to discovery research. Colleges have capitalized on their strong community connections and modest federal investments in applied research to respond to the R and D needs of local and regional partners.

Let me give you numbers now.

In 2014-15, Colleges and Institutes Canada worked with more than 6,000 applied research partners, 86% of which were small and medium-sized enterprises and micro-enterprises, to improve products, develop new products, and create prototypes or processes and services.

Where colleges and institutes make a big difference is in helping these SMEs to innovate and scale up their operations and create jobs, often in support of the vital roles they play in the supply chains of large companies. SMEs, as you know, represent 99.7% of all Canadian firms, and employ 90% of the private sector workforce, yet account for just 27% of total R and D expenditures, so there's a lot of potential for growth.

We recommend that the government ramp up federal investment in college and institute applied research over five years from $75 million to $300 million per year. So far, since 2008, we have received funding of $5 million to $10 million per year, but it is insufficient and we have to turn down industry now. This increase in federal support would capitalize on the very welcome strategic investments this government has made over the past few months in college and institute innovation infrastructure.

Examples of how the new funding could stimulate growth include creating more specialized research centres to work with small and medium-sized enterprises, building on the success of the 30 technology access centres that the government is currently funding; and expanding the reach of college-based applied research in the fields of health care and social innovation.

Second—

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Can I ask you to wrap up? I know you have one more recommendation, so perhaps you could sum it up in a minute or so.

5:40 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Colleges and Institutes Canada

Denise Amyot

Second, we believe that we should increase the funding for indigenous education at the post-secondary level. The government has ensured that there is funding for K to 12, but has not for post-secondary. We must strengthen skills upgrading in indigenous communities, so we recommend that the government build on the great success of the northern adult basic education program delivered at the three territorial colleges.

Because of time, I will go to my third recommendation immediately. In fact, I will just conclude instead, and say that over the past few months, we've heard many voices, including those of the finance minister's advisory council on economic growth, highlighting the opportunities and challenges facing Canada. As Canada celebrates its 150th anniversary and as many colleges and institutes celebrate their 50th anniversaries, we believe that we are ready to step up to build a better, more prosperous, and more equitable Canada.

Merci beaucoup.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you.

Ms. Demerse with Clean Energy Canada, the floor is yours.

October 27th, 2016 / 5:40 p.m.

Clare Demerse Federal Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada

Thank you so much for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I'm very honoured to be here today.

I'm the federal policy adviser for a climate and energy think tank called Clean Energy Canada. We're a project of Simon Fraser University's Centre for Dialogue.

I'd like to make two main points with my time here today. The first is that the federal government needs to invest in measures that speed up the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. The second is that the 2017 budget needs to help implement Canada's national climate plan.

Expert assessments in Canada and around the world tell the same story: to tackle climate change, we need clean electricity to power far more of our daily activities than it does today. Over time, we need to shift from fuelling our personal vehicles with gasoline to driving electric cars. Electric pumps will draw heat from the air or the ground to keep our homes warm in winter and cool in summer. Innovative industrial processes will use clean power to produce the goods and materials that we need. This transition from fossil fuels to clean electricity, sometimes called electrification, is needed here in Canada, but also around the world. As a result, the global market for renewable electricity is growing quickly. So is demand for the technologies and services that underpin this transition, from smart grids to software for charging electric cars.

All of this is excellent news for Canada. Our country already has one of the cleanest electricity sectors in the world. Today, over 80% of our power comes from non-emitting sources, and that share is poised to grow. This head start means that clean power is a comparative advantage for Canada. With the right policy signals as a foundation, our country can reap the benefits of growth fuelled by clean electricity. We'll see those benefits in new jobs, innovation, business development, and export opportunities, while reducing our carbon pollution.

Our organization worked with expert stakeholders to put together a package of recommendations to accelerate Canada's clean energy transition. Some of those recommendations will be regulatory changes, but others are budget proposals. These are contained in the brief that we submitted to your committee.

For example, we would like to see budget 2017 support the following: ongoing investment in the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles and in incentives for drivers to purchase electric cars; retrofits to cut energy waste in homes and other buildings; and the creation of a national action plan for electrification, which would require funding for research and analysis. I would also like to note that the very first recommendation our expert group made was for a price on carbon across Canada that grows over time. We congratulate the federal government for taking this step earlier this fall.

My second main point is that the 2017 budget needs to help implement Canada's national climate plan. Earlier this year, federal, provincial, and territorial governments launched an effort to negotiate a pan-Canadian plan capable of achieving Canada's 2030 climate target. First ministers will meet in December to negotiate key policies under that plan, and they have committed to having a framework ready to implement by early 2017.

Last year's budget introduced two significant future spending commitments related to climate change: the second phase of federal infrastructure funding, particularly the green infrastructure fund; and the $2-billion low-carbon economy fund, which is due to start in 2017. This year's budget can ensure that these funds are used effectively to help kick-start clean growth under a national climate plan. We've recommended a number of potential categories for clean energy investments, including the following: energy storage, meaning technologies that store power so we can use it when it's needed; community energy efficiency and electrification initiatives; electricity system upgrades, to make the systems smarter and more efficient; and transmission investment, to better connect clean energy jurisdictions to those still burning fossil fuels for power.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you.

From the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, we have Mr. Ross, program manager, and Ms. Ferris, vice-president.

Ms. Ferris.

5:45 p.m.

Allison Ferris Vice-President, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Allison Ferris, and I am the vice-president of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. I am joined by Tim Ross, our staff person responsible for policy and government relations.

We're here today to offer input on measures and actions that the federal government can undertake through budget 2017 to contribute to economic growth, prosperity, and inclusion, especially as that relates to Canada's growing housing challenges.

Canada's history reflects the achievement of a population that's built a powerful economy and a generous society. When Canadians work together in a manner that harmonizes economic, social, and environmental interests, Canadians thrive. This blend of co-operation and entrepreneurship is the co-operative way. When economic, social, and environmental interests are not harmonized, as currently seen in Canada's housing system, Canadians struggle.

Canada's affordable housing crisis is now so acute that it not only affects low-income households, it also affects Canada's middle class. Canada's prosperity depends on a housing system that meets the needs of all Canadians. Millions of Canadians are looking for answers, and budget 2017 can make the difference. Canadians desire communities that support their economic aspirations, advance their social well-being, and promote environmental sustainability. Building a housing system that better supports co-operative and entrepreneurial values can help make this happen.

Housing co-operatives are making it happen. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada is our strong national voice for housing co-operatives. Across Canada there are over 2,300 housing co-operatives with a portfolio of approximately 96,750 units. Over a quarter of a million Canadians live in a housing co-operative. At its most basic level, a co-operative is an autonomous association of persons working together to meet their own economic, social, and cultural aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise.

In the case of housing co-operatives, people from all walks of life are empowered to build and own housing that meets their needs in a manner that is inclusive, affordable, and sustainable. Furthermore, through our long-standing partnership with government, housing co-operatives have been able to go the extra mile by dedicating a significant portion of units to meeting the housing aspirations of low-income households.

To build on this platform of affordability, inclusion, and sustainability, a revitalized partnership is required with the federal government.

Now I'd like to turn it over to my colleague, Tim Ross, to offer details.

5:45 p.m.

Timothy Ross Program Manager, Policy and Government Relations, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada

We see the development of a national housing strategy as a very important step in the right direction, and we really welcome this progress. We therefore urge the finance committee to make sure that the housing strategy is turned into housing dollars in budget 2017. To build a more co-operative housing system for Canadians that balances the interests of people, planet, and profit, CHF Canada proposes three integrated initiatives.

Firstly, we need to start by protecting low-income households currently living in housing co-operatives. Our member co-ops are overwhelmingly dedicated to building inclusive, mixed-income housing communities, where low-income Canadians can own housing that is affordable, adequate, and suitable to their needs. But government funding that enables co-ops to house low-income Canadians has expired and will continue to sharply decline in the coming years. Without a renewed partnership, 20,000 low-income households living in housing co-operatives will face economic eviction and housing instability. We cannot let this happen. We therefore ask the finance committee to recommend budget 2017 commit to replacing expired operating subsidies with new, long-term funding so that low-income households living in housing co-operatives are protected.

Secondly, housing co-ops now have enormous potential to leverage their mixed-income revenue base, their surplus lands, and their strong equity position in order to attract new forms of investment. This leverage allows co-ops to modernize, to become more energy efficient, and to build new homes. This requires a policy and regulatory environment that supports this work. Thanks to some recent federal measures, co-ops have been able to leverage almost $100 million in new private credit union financing in just two short years. We've barely scratched the surface of our sector's ability to leverage new investment and we will continue to need a supportive policy and regulatory environment to keep going.

Our third proposal is simple. After decades of development and stewardship, Canada's housing co-operatives have demonstrated their durability in providing long-term, affordable housing for their members. We urge the finance committee to recommend that budget 2017 supports building new co-operative housing.

We believe that, if supported, these three recommendations, these specific measures, will bring relief to Canadians experiencing a serious housing crunch. Canadians are looking for answers. The federal government has unprecedented, popular support to make things happen, to act; and co-ops are ready to work with the federal government to build a housing system that works for all Canadians.

Thank you very much.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you both for your presentation.

For the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, we have Mr. Reilly-King.